You may be an Accidental Diminisher:
- You’re a visionary – You are a big thinker and lay out a compelling vision of the future that you evangelize to those around you. You think you’re following popular leadership practice, but you may not be leaving enough space for others to think through the challenges for themselves and generate intellectual muscle to make a vision a reality.
- You’ve got the gift of gab – You’re passionate and articulate and can consume a lot of space in a meeting. You may think your passion is infectious, but more likely it is stifling the thinking of others.
- You’re a creative, idea person – You’re a fountain of innovation, continually spouting new ideas for your team to play with. You may think you’re sparking creativity, but you are quite possibly causing organizational whiplash as people around you scurry to keep up with each new idea.
3 comments:
I appreciate this post although I do not fully agree with the premise of evaluating an individual as either a multiplier or diminisher. This type of approach is black and white whereas I believe that we exist in a "shades of gray" world.
Instead of an "either/or" characterization, we should be aware of our current mindset at any given instant, and then honestly assess whether or not we are helping (multiplying) or hindering (diminishing) our organization in that moment. This is where a self-assessment as to where we fall on the "diminisher to multiplier" spectrum can certainly be valuable in providing us with perspective as to our immediate need to adapt our behavior or interaction with others.
As an example, many people lionize Steve Jobs for his contributions to our modern life; and yet, he would have been evaluated as a "diminisher" (in my opinion) using the criteria listed in the online evaluation tool you referenced. I believe he tailored his behavior to the momentary need while tending towards more diminishing traits than multiplicative under the stated criteria. In fact, I strongly disagree with anyone who does not believe that Steve Jobs served as an ultra-multiplier in spite of his tyrannical tendencies.
Bottom line for me: "Value-added" leadership should be viewed as knowing when to "take charge" by laying out a vision and potentially dominating the conversation - or when to "lay slack" and encourage our shipmates to lead and contribute their strategies for the unit, ship, command, etc... to succeed.
I appreciate this post although I do not fully agree with the premise of evaluating an individual as either a multiplier or diminisher. This type of approach is black and white whereas I believe that we exist in a "shades of gray" world.
Instead of an "either/or" characterization, we should be aware of our current mindset at any given instant, and then honestly assess whether or not we are helping (multiplying) or hindering (diminishing) our organization in that moment. This is where a self-assessment as to where we fall on the "diminisher to multiplier" spectrum can certainly be valuable in providing us with perspective as to our immediate need to adapt our behavior or interaction with others.
As an example, many people lionize Steve Jobs for his contributions to our modern life; and yet, he would have been evaluated as a "diminisher" (in my opinion) using the criteria listed in the online evaluation tool you referenced. I believe he tailored his behavior to the momentary need while tending towards more diminishing traits than multiplicative under the stated criteria. In fact, I strongly disagree with anyone who does not believe that Steve Jobs served as an ultra-multiplier in spite of his tyrannical tendencies.
Bottom line for me: "Value-added" leadership should be viewed as knowing when to "take charge" by laying out a vision and potentially dominating the conversation - or when to "lay slack" and encourage our shipmates to lead and contribute their strategies for the unit, ship, command, etc... to succeed.
What I got out of this article was to be cautious about being a diminisher, by accident. There's some quote out there that says we have three characters: the one we have, the one we think we have, and then the one others think we have. This article is telling us that even though we may think we are a multiplier, we in reality might just be a diminisher.
Jack Napier argues that we need a balance between diminishing leadership and multiplying leadership, given the grayness in the situations most face in whatever they are leading. I guess how one views this needs to consider the time frame involved and how aggressively one is pursuing growth. Some of our best leaders over history though provided consistent guidance to their teams.
Post a Comment